Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Telemachus (guest writer ) : Kaiser Chiefs "Employment"

written by : telemachus

Hey there. I'm not sure how to submit a review directly, so I'll just leave it here and somebody else can post it if they deem it worthy...Joe Tanagri: Kaiser Chiefs' "Employment"Remember when Pitchfork reviews used to be short? Way back when? Seriously, just look up their review of Ben Folds Five's self-titled debut. We're talkin' two, three paragraphs, max. Drop a couple song titles, make your point, and done. Finito. Recently, it seems like each writer on the staff is searching for ways to waste more and more e-breath on tangential and often completely misleading comparisons, cheesy autobiographical anecdotes, and all other manner of verbally masturbatory tricks and treats. In a way, then, it's quite refreshing to see Joe Tangari getting back to his roots, turning in a review of the Kaiser Chiefs' new album "Employment" that clocks in at just under 400 words. Yup, a skant four paragrahs. Surely, we're in for a concise, astute bit of journalism.It becomes obvious very quickly, however, that Tangari's brevity is no gift. As with all Pitchfork reviews, this one still commits the cardinal sin of not talking at all about the actual music. It's just much more efficient at not talking about it.The review reads like it was probably conceptualized, written and submitted in 6.7 minutes (I think that's how he decided on his rating, btw...), and is a sloppy excuse for a review by today's excrutiatingly pretentious Pitchfork standards. He opens with the paper-thin premise of British bands hiding their accents since the days of The Clash. While I admire his intense determination to forget the decade of 1990-99, I can't help recalling an ever-so-slight Mancunian flavor to the voice of one Liam Gallagher as he serenaded me relentlessly over the radio about some wall...or something. Honestly, I couldn't understand him. The accent was too thick. Spend five minutes, and you too will be able to spew forth a list of about a hundred bands who fly in the face of Joe's contrived introduction.Ok. So that's half the review down already.But perhaps the clearest sign of Tangari's haste is betrayed by his very attempts to actually incorporate some kind of musical analysis into his review. He goes out of his way to mention three...THREE...whole songs from the CD individually. This is the kind of attention to detail that gets most Pitchfork writers a fat holiday bonus. But take a closer look at the songs he chooses to review. They occupy track numbers 1, 3, and 4 on the CD. Perhaps 6.7 also represents the number of minutes he took out of his day to listen to the CD before scribbling down his review onto a napkin. C'mon Joe...If you're going to do something, you've got to give it 100%, not 6.7%. As it stands now, the review is a meaningless piece of drivel that reads like some 7th grader's book report, scrawled out in haste moments before the start of 3rd period. Its only saving grace is that its over before you can get too upset about it.Rating: 3 incredulous looks at my computer screen out of 10.
11:21 AM